for conscious phenomena. Who can say how to quantify emotions such
as fear or anger? We need at least a Richter scale for emotion.
Given this state of affairs a detailed theory of Consciousness similar to
a theory of Physics or Chemistry is no where in sight. We can only
expect qualitative descriptions and rules for most phenomena of
Consciousness. We can only expect general relationships between
brain activity and phenomena of Consciousness. We can expect certain
specialized (simple) phenomena of Consciousness to be based on
detailed brain activity.
A Similarity between Theories of Consciousness and
Economic Theory
The study of Consciousness is plagued by the lack of a quantitative
framework to describe phenomena. We don’t know the relevant
variables that describe a phenomenon of Consciousness. We usually
don’t know what to measure, and, in the cases where we do find
something to measure, we don’t know how to measure it or how to
interpret it or how to relate it to brain activity quantitatively.
This state of affairs is reminiscent of the situation of the Economics of
a country. At the microscopic level we can in principle trace every
transaction, aggregate all the transactions in the country’s economy
and thus obtain a complete view of the economy. We can also trace the
evolution of the economy in time. However we do not have a detailed
complete quantitative theory of Economics.
As a result we can only make predictions based on extrapolations of
trends. If we change the pattern of financial transactions in the country
we cannot unambiguously predict the effects on the economy. We can
only create models based on assumptions. Some models are quite
good. But they are no replacement for a complete theory of
Economics.
The modern theory of Economics was born in the Eighteenth and
Nineteenth Centuries in the work of Adam Smith and others. It started
with general qualitative statements based on simple observations.
These statements had some predictive power. Then in the Twentieth
Century a host of Economists developed quantitative theories for
economic phenomena. Economics became semi-quantitative - but
there were still many unanswered questions. There is still a problem
relating the microscopic picture of individual transactions and the “Big
Picture” view of the economy. The predictive power of Economic
Theory is still spotty.
Compare the development of Economic Theory with the Theory of
Consciousness. The microscopic theory is the theory of the brain. The
“Big Picture” is Consciousness. We can only make quantitative
statements about Consciousness. Our microscopic picture is still
incomplete. Clearly the state the development of Consciousness
Theory is comparable to the state of Economic Theory in the
Nineteenth Century. On the positive side the rate at which our
knowledge of Consciousness and the brain is developing is much
faster than the development of Economics.
The development of Economics offers a paradigm for the development
of our understanding of Consciousness.
It also suggests a way of picturing the relation between Consciousness
and the brain. We can view the brain as a vast interconnected network
of electrical activity with connections to the Consciousness. We will
view Consciousness as a separate level that is conceptually unified and
connected by “channels” or communications paths to the brain. This is
a theoretical framework that reflects strategies used in economic
analysis. One can view stock or commodity prices from two
perspectives: one perspective views price changes as reactions to
external events; another perspective views price changes from a
“technical” perspective based on trends in charts of historical price
data.
We suggest that one should view Consciousness as a thing in itself
developing a self-contained theory of Consciousness (a “technical”
approach). This theory can then be related to the underlying dynamics
and processes of the brain.